This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Manning Bartlett (talk | contribs) at 11:38, 5 October 2009 (→Clerking actions: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:38, 5 October 2009 by Manning Bartlett (talk | contribs) (→Clerking actions: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
{{archive box|
Arch1}
aldebaran
dobra, niech se pisze chlopak, bo widze ze nie ma nic leprzego do roboty ...ale powiem ci jedno. Piszac tak jak pisze, nie tylko kompromituje siebie ale tez nas Polakow, bo ci wszyscy ktorzy beda te jego pseudo-angielskie wywody czytac utwierdza sie tylko w szeroko juz uznanym przekonaniu ze Polacy to idioci, ktorych stac w najleprzym razie na kaleczenie jezyka Angielskiego, i na niezrozumiale dukanie. Pozatym nie rozume chlop po polsku i przypuszczam ze uzywa programu do tlumacznia. Wiele rzeczy po prostu jest napisanych niezgodnie z tym co jest oryginalnie na polskiej Wikipedji, z ktorej sciaga doslownie wszystko. A wszystkiego tego co on naduka nie da sie ot tak naprawic bo sadzi byki takie ze czasami sie plakac chce, i nie mowie o pisowni, bo pal to szesc, ale o skladni ktora moze przeinaczyc znaczenie zdania, zwlaszcza w angielskim.
Na zakonczenie, ja tez bym mogl zaczac pisac na hiszpanskiej stronie ale mam wystarczajoco duzo taktu ze wiem ze kalecze ten jezyk i to co pisze bylo by masakra przykra do czytania. Napewno bym nie zmienial artykolow napisanych przez tych ktorzy po Hiszpansku mowia plynnie... bylo by to w moim mniemaniu poprostu bezczelne. Ale jak ci jego proza nie przeszkadza to coz, ja cie nie przekonam ze wiecej szkodzi niz pomaga. Powiedz mi czy Ebonics tez uwazasz za piekny wyraz ekspresji? then... word dog. Them polish king fools was fo sho some mad stupid nikaz, and git Sheniquah's ass back ova' heeah, befo I get crazy on that Wiki bool shizel, that's my word, ya'll betta recognize! ;)
Pozdrawiam --Rob Aleksandrowicz (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
What do you think?
]
Important
] ]
Notification
Sockpuppeting
Regarding your question in your edit summary, there is a good case to be made that Vecrumba is User:84.65.174.113 and User:84.68.27.75. LokiiT (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Vecrumba resides very far from there. If it makes a good case, what would make a poor case, Krawndawg? Colchicum (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Do you know what a Proxy is? Moreover, are you aware that people sometimes go on business trips/vacations to other countries? The location of an IP proves nothing. The activity is highly suspicious. And what does my former account have to do with this discussion? That account was discovered by accident when someone accused me of being someone else's sockpuppet, so yeah, this does make a better case. LokiiT (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- LokiiT, either file a Checkuser request or stop making baseless accusations.radek (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why don't you mind your own business and stop acting like you're some sort of authority. Please and thanks. I'm not out to get people, so if he is socking, I have given him a chance to stop. If he continues, it will be obvious and I will report it. And if he's not socking at all, I have simply made a mistake and no harm has been done. But again, this is none of your business so I ask you to please keep your nose out of conflicts that do not involve you.LokiiT (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Making false accusations of sock puppeting is serious business and generally lowers the level of discussion on Misplaced Pages. Also, because this is an article I am involved in, this is certainly my business.radek (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Then why don't you report me if it's such a serious matter. The thought just occurred to me, you seem pretty darn sure of yourself that these suspicious one-time-use IPs don't belong to him. Yet it's obvious that they belong to someone involved in that article's dispute. Is there anything you aren't sharing here? One way or another I think it's important to find out who's using anonymous IPs to revert war. LokiiT (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Are you making yet another baseless accusation?radek (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly not. But do you not agree that this IP activity is suspicious? It has many hallmarks of an IP sock. Misplaced Pages:Signs_of_sock_puppetry - Precocious edit histories (note the edit summaries), Editing identical articles, Edit warring, Single-purpose accounts (Note they only have 1-2 edits each, and both the exact same edit) etc.. You cannot credibly claim this is baseless. LokiiT (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Your statement "you seem pretty darn sure of yourself" and the question "Is there anything you aren't sharing here?" both imply that you are making an accusation. A clearly worded retraction is in order.radek (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't put words in my mouth. I wasn't implying anything. I was bluntly asking why you are so sure of yourself that he's not socking when it's pretty clear that someone is. Do you have any information regarding these anonymous IPs? If not, consider this discussion over. LokiiT (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- I also wonder who User:Sbw01f was. Was not he some how related to you, LokiiT? Biophys (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't put words in my mouth. I wasn't implying anything. I was bluntly asking why you are so sure of yourself that he's not socking when it's pretty clear that someone is. Do you have any information regarding these anonymous IPs? If not, consider this discussion over. LokiiT (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Your statement "you seem pretty darn sure of yourself" and the question "Is there anything you aren't sharing here?" both imply that you are making an accusation. A clearly worded retraction is in order.radek (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly not. But do you not agree that this IP activity is suspicious? It has many hallmarks of an IP sock. Misplaced Pages:Signs_of_sock_puppetry - Precocious edit histories (note the edit summaries), Editing identical articles, Edit warring, Single-purpose accounts (Note they only have 1-2 edits each, and both the exact same edit) etc.. You cannot credibly claim this is baseless. LokiiT (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Are you making yet another baseless accusation?radek (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Then why don't you report me if it's such a serious matter. The thought just occurred to me, you seem pretty darn sure of yourself that these suspicious one-time-use IPs don't belong to him. Yet it's obvious that they belong to someone involved in that article's dispute. Is there anything you aren't sharing here? One way or another I think it's important to find out who's using anonymous IPs to revert war. LokiiT (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Making false accusations of sock puppeting is serious business and generally lowers the level of discussion on Misplaced Pages. Also, because this is an article I am involved in, this is certainly my business.radek (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why don't you mind your own business and stop acting like you're some sort of authority. Please and thanks. I'm not out to get people, so if he is socking, I have given him a chance to stop. If he continues, it will be obvious and I will report it. And if he's not socking at all, I have simply made a mistake and no harm has been done. But again, this is none of your business so I ask you to please keep your nose out of conflicts that do not involve you.LokiiT (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- LokiiT, either file a Checkuser request or stop making baseless accusations.radek (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Do you know what a Proxy is? Moreover, are you aware that people sometimes go on business trips/vacations to other countries? The location of an IP proves nothing. The activity is highly suspicious. And what does my former account have to do with this discussion? That account was discovered by accident when someone accused me of being someone else's sockpuppet, so yeah, this does make a better case. LokiiT (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
(od) Sadly, LokiiT, I have been looking after my elderly mother who has had a decline in health and has been in nursing home care for several months now and have not left Brooklyn (that would be U.S., not U.K.) for some time. This attack certainly speaks to your editorial character or lack thereof, particularly as you have not contacted me prior or subsequent to your accusation here.
This would be little more than another behind-the-back stab-in-the-back personal attack used to push personal agendas and POVs.
Lastly, my experience in these things has been that people accuse editors of things they do themselves. Oops! Appears to be the case. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 17:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. Reverting an edit which clearly mischaracterizes a recounting of content as someone's personal opinion is hardly "exact same edit." You push a POV, you get reverted, that's how it works. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 17:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
So with these new developments, of which all three of you are involved in, how about an apology and admittance that these mysterious IPs did originate from your cabal, which was never a doubt of mine in the first place?
Here's a quote from someone who has read this email archive: "Let's get one thing clear: this list is real, and the amount of incriminating material is breathtakingly overwhelming and thickly spread, so much so that despite the huge size of the archive evidence of gross misconduct is obscenely easy to spot. For instance, in the threads entitled " Molobo ban" (early days of June), it is revealed that Piotrus, Radek, Biophys and others knew and encouraged Molobo's recent socking (for which he was banned for a year by User:Avraham), conspired more puppetry, pondered how to avoid detection in future, and advocated use of proxies. Other such activities are easy to spot. Conspiring to harass and edit-war is so rampant throughout the archive that ironing out the details is almost pointless, and using this User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/North-East Europe AE threads along with the archive saves very little time." LokiiT (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Lokii, nobody on the list, AFAIK (with the possible exception of Molobo for which he was already busted) ever used sockpuppets. As I've stated on the relevant pages, you can check user me up, down, left, right, east, west, north, south and in whatever other way there is. I've simply never used sock puppets and I seriously doubt anyone else did either. Deacon is either lying through his teeth or he's looking at some seriously faked emails. Would you yourself be willing to get yourself check usered? No apologies from me here.radek (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- And btw, the discussions about sock puppetry that took place on the list where about how to detect sock puppetry so that these users can be reported.radek (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- A usercheck does nothing in determining who's using a proxy. It would be impossible to physically prove without a doubt that a proxy is a specific user (or someone using a school/library/friend's computer or someone stealing wireless internet etc.. there are numerous ways), but that's where common sense comes in. An admin does not need physical proof or a usercheck to block someone for IP/Proxy socking. How can you possibly maintain that these one-use IPs who came to your/vecrumba's rescue, along with other IPs shown at the evidence page in similar situations are just complete coincidence? Even after this outing? That is what you're implying, right? LokiiT (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- You're basing your accusations on stuff that Deacon is making up. Nobody on the list used sock puppets and general consensus was that aside from its ethical problems, the usage of sock puppets is pretty stupid. I have no idea who these IPs are - anon users edit articles all the time. On the other hand, I believe you yourself do have a history in this regard, am I right?radek (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- So your argument is that it's all a big lie, and that this was indeed just a coincidence, as were other similar incidences? Alright, that's all I wanted to hear. And given that you obviously already know about my previous ban for sock puppetting, which was already brought up in this discussion in a similarly inflammatory manner, I'll ask you kindly, and only once, that you refrain from making any further inflammatory inquiries in an attempt to get a reaction out of me and shift focus away from the topic at hand. This isn't about me. If you wish to discuss my previous history with sockpuppeting, for whatever reason, please feel free to post your inquiries on my talk page, or you may email me. That said, you've yet to say anything to put so much as a single doubt in my head as to where these IPs originated from. The only cause for my reluctance to report them is that it's not clear to me which specific user they are, and it would be impossible to prove if they are indeed proxies, therefore it would likely result in no action being taken on technical grounds. However, I have a feeling that this will all be irrelevant once this arbcom case is concluded, so I won't be losing any sleep over it. LokiiT (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- You're basing your accusations on stuff that Deacon is making up. Nobody on the list used sock puppets and general consensus was that aside from its ethical problems, the usage of sock puppets is pretty stupid. I have no idea who these IPs are - anon users edit articles all the time. On the other hand, I believe you yourself do have a history in this regard, am I right?radek (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Please comment here
User:Piotrus/ArbCom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Platoon 535
|
On September 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Platoon 535, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Jake Wartenberg 04:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Mirosław Iringh
|
|
On September 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mirosław Iringh, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Jake Wartenberg 04:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Leon Feiner
|
|
On September 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leon Feiner, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
≈ Chamal ¤ 12:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
"The Bund on Misplaced Pages" Project
Hello,
Are you interested in participating in the "The Bund on Misplaced Pages" Project? If so, please join the Task Force. For more information, please visit our website: bundwiki.weebly.com. Thanks.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Great to see that you added your name to the "Participants" list. Are you familiar with the Bund? Do you have any specific interests?--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
RfC at WT:ECON
Hi, I've reformulated the proposed guidelines based on your and other's comments. I would appreciate it if you could have a look and further comment there. Thankyou, --LK (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
On slander right on ArbCom's watch and my example of swamped AFDs
Your accusations against me at ArbCom are really false, and just empty mudslinging. Everything will be checked carefully–so I recommend you withdraw. As regards the AFD example for Neo-Stalinism, I meant the Category:Neo-Stalinism, not the article that GCarty made. See the CFD right here: . I changed the name to swamped AFDs/CFDs to accommodate this.
Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I very much hope that everything is checked carefully. I hope the ArbCom members actually bother to follow the links I provided (which you neglected to provide) and see for themselves. I know it may be some work but I'm sure that if this is done your manipulations of the facts will become pretty self evident. And it's not my fault you confused an article with a category. And still, everyone (by that I mean all the editors not on the list + myself who took part) voted against you. At some point repeatedly trying to bring cats/articles for deletion against clear consensus becomes disruptive. Radeksz
Henryk Ehrlich
It is DYKable; don't forget to nominate it (and similar quality articles). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, sometimes it takes me longer to think of the proper hook than to actually write the article.radek (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Radeksz, let me know when that happens. Thats a good accomplishment that deserves mention on the Jewish Labour Bund Task Force.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
RFC on Nortom publishing
Please comment here if you have time.Faustian (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Recommended Reading
Hi Radekez, I think you will find the book Darkness at Noon relevant in the current situation--Woogie10w (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks will definitely check it out.radek (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Topic ban
In response to your attempts at dispute intensification at the recent WP:AN thread on Russavia, Radeksz, you are hereby topic banned from Russavia, except for your participation in the arbitration case, for the duration of that case. You are not to comment on, report on, wikihound, or otherwise annoy Russavia. Should Russavia show the extreme poor judgement of engaging Radeksz, please leave me a diff and I will deal with that. Jehochman 12:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- You know what's crazy? I'm actually going to *abide* by my topic ban. How's that for total insanity?radek (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! You have my respect. Jehochman 18:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Did You Know problem
Hello! Your submission of Michał Klepfisz at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Expanded. Should be good now.radek (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Kultur Lige
Almost DYKable... will you finish it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Radeksz, let me know when that happens. Thats a good accomplishment that deserves mention on the Jewish Labour Bund Task Force.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerking actions
Radek - I am very sympathetic to all the frustration levels. Hence although it is my responsibility to enforce decorum, I am trying to do as quietly as possible and without creating any additional drama. Regards Manning (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)